{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-11T08:48:02.268Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"tribunal","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"core","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":5,"coverage":{"cases":5,"countries":2,"languages":3,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":2,"minors":0,"coreRelations":5,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":1,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-uk-upper-tribunal-immigration-adviser-google-ai-mode-fake-case-in-appeal-grounds-regulator-self-report","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'he was the person responsible for the case and drafting of the grounds of 17th March 2025 in this matter.'; 'provide an explanation for the fact that the case Horleston v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 654 cited in the grounds of appeal to the Upper Tribunal is not available on BAILII'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Grounds of appeal dated 17 March 2025, drafted by the adviser, cited a case (Horleston v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 654) that the Upper Tribunal could not find, under the citation of an unrelated case; the tribunal issued a show cause notice.","causal_attribution":"Established by the judgment's own record of the show cause notice and the adviser's response."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'We confirm unequivocally that no AI large language model (such as ChatGPT) was used in drafting the grounds of appeal.'; 'In absence of an explanation and with how AI operates, I cannot dismiss the fact that the case was an AI creation as there is no other explanation.'; 'his best guess was that he had inadvertently used the “AI Mode” of a Google search by clicking on this on the bar under the search topic.'; 'concluded himself that it was probable that this had happened because of the inadvertent use of an AI large language model'; 'As far as the Panel could establish there had never been a reported case called Horleston but Google AI nevertheless can, depending on the question posed, produce information such as panels of Court of Appeal judges who sat on this non-existent case'; 'By asking Google AI the same question in slightly different ways, we were able to elicit various different compositions of the bench which decided that fictitious case.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The adviser first denied using an AI large language model, later said he could not dismiss that the case was an AI creation, and at the hearing gave as his best guess that he had inadvertently used Google's 'AI Mode'; the tribunal found he had concluded it was probable the fake case came from inadvertent AI use, and the panel elicited varying benches for the fictitious case from Google AI.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal documents what the adviser said and its own test of Google AI; the source of the case in the drafting rests on his conclusion and best guess, so the claim is reported."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'reported himself to the IAA and to the SRA for having unknowingly inserted a non-existent case in grounds of appeal'; 'has already done this and there is no need for us to do so. If he had not done this we wish to make it clear that we would have made a referral'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The adviser reported himself to the IAA and the SRA for having unknowingly inserted a non-existent case, and the tribunal made no referral for that reason, stating it would otherwise have referred him.","causal_attribution":"Established by the judgment's findings and its stated decision on referral."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'he had put client emails he had drafted explaining Home Office decisions into ChatGPT to try to improve them and he had uploaded Home Office decision letters to this platform to summarise them for clients.'; 'He informed us that he now realises that this is a data breach and will inform the clients that he has done this, as well as the IAA and the SRA.'; 'to put client letters and decision letters from the Home Office into an open source AI tool, such as ChatGPT, is to place this information on the internet in the public domain, and thus to breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The adviser told the tribunal he had put client emails explaining Home Office decisions into ChatGPT and uploaded Home Office decision letters to it to summarise them, called this a data breach he would disclose to the clients, the IAA and the SRA; the tribunal said such uploads breach client confidentiality and waive legal privilege.","causal_attribution":"The uploads rest on the adviser's own account as recorded by the tribunal; the tribunal's statement on confidentiality is its own observation. The clients' number and whether they were told are not stated."}],"effects":[{"label":"non-existent case, probably from Google AI Mode by his own account, placed in appeal grounds he drafted","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"self-reported to the IAA and the SRA; the tribunal would otherwise have referred him","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/81","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Full judgment text read on Find Case Law (HTTP 200); no translation.","independence_group":"ukut-2026-81-judgment"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["Whether the false case actually came from Google AI Mode; the judgment records the adviser's best guess and conclusion, with no search history or output","What effect, if any, the false case had on the appellant's permission application","How many clients' emails or decision letters were put into ChatGPT and whether they were informed","The outcome of the IAA and SRA self-reports"],"geography":{"basis":"Event: the grounds were filed with the First-tier and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), heard at Field House, and the adviser practises under the UK regulators IAA and SRA (judgment). Court: the Upper Tribunal. The adviser's and clients' countries of residence are not stated.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published from the full Upper Tribunal judgment: it documents the false case in grounds the adviser drafted and his self-reports to two regulators, and records his conclusion that the case probably came from inadvertent AI use and his best guess that the tool was Google AI Mode, which the panel's own Google AI test illustrates. The AI source is attributed to his account; his separate account of uploading client documents to ChatGPT is context. The adviser is described by role; the anonymised appellant is not counted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The judgment records the adviser's best guess that the non-existent case came from his inadvertent use of Google's 'AI Mode', and finds that he concluded it was probable the case was included because of inadvertent use of an AI large language model; the panel reproduced Google AI generating different benches for the same fictitious case. The output reached him through his own search (communicated_with) and went into the grounds that led to the show cause notice and his self-reports. This rests on his account as recorded by the tribunal; he first denied AI use. His separate account of putting client emails and Home Office decision letters into ChatGPT is described as context and is not part of this case's harm.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"UK Upper Tribunal: immigration adviser gives Google AI Mode as his best guess for a non-existent case in grounds he drafted; he self-reported to regulators","summary":"In the first of two matters decided together in [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), promulgated on 17 November 2025, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) examined grounds of appeal dated 17 March 2025 that cited a non-existent Court of Appeal case under the citation of an unrelated equal-pay case. The adviser who drafted them first denied using AI, then told the tribunal his best guess was that he had inadvertently used Google's 'AI Mode', and the tribunal recorded that he had concluded it was probable the case came from inadvertent AI use; the panel itself got Google AI to produce varying benches for the fictitious case. He reported himself to the Immigration Advice Authority and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and the tribunal said it would otherwise have referred him. He also told the tribunal that he had put client emails and uploaded Home Office decision letters into ChatGPT to summarise them, which he called a data breach he would disclose to the clients; the tribunal said such uploads breach client confidentiality and waive privilege.","incidentDate":"2025-03-17","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2025-11-17","aiSystem":"Google search 'AI Mode', identified by the adviser as his best guess for the source of the false case","aiProduct":"Google AI Mode (reported)","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Upper Tribunal's judgment, an immigration adviser placed a non-existent case in appeal grounds, which the tribunal found he had concluded probably came from inadvertent AI use (his best guess: Google AI Mode); he self-reported to the IAA and the SRA, and the tribunal said it would otherwise have referred him.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One counted person: the adviser, who used the AI and faced the regulatory consequence. His clients whose emails and decision letters he said he put into ChatGPT belong to a separate, undated matter described as context and are not counted. The appellant in the matter is not counted because no consequence of the false case for the appeal is stated.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"internal_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/iac/2026/81","primarySourceLabel":"Find Case Law, [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), UK v SSHD (AI hallucinations; supervision; Hamid), promulgated 17 November 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-11T03:13:21.379148+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:27:35.689369+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-hallucination","fabricated-citations","legal","immigration","tribunal","google-ai-mode","united-kingdom","communicated-with"]},{"id":"2023-sevilla-court-conviction-ai-nude-images-three-former-schoolmates-instagram-telegram-app","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"En una sentencia dictada el día 1 de octubre tras el acuerdo de conformidad alcanzado ese mismo día entre la Fiscalía de Criminalidad Informática de Sevilla, la acusación particular y las defensas, el juez condena a tres varones por tres delitos contra la integridad moral con la agravante de género","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"les impone a cada uno de ellos un total de nueve meses de cárcel y la prohibición de acceder a las aplicaciones Telegram, WhatsApp, Instagram y Discord por tiempo total de tres años y nueve meses","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"que ya es firme tras el acuerdo entre las partes","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Un juez de Sevilla ha condenado a tres hombres a nueve meses de cárcel y a casi cuatro años de prohibición de uso de las aplicaciones Telegram, WhatsApp, Instagram y Discord por desnudar a excompañeras de clase usando la Inteligencia Artificial (IA) y después distribuir las imágenes por Internet","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 1 October 2026 a judge of the criminal section of the Tribunal de Instancia de Sevilla, by conformity agreement, convicted three men of three offences against moral integrity with the gender aggravating factor and sentenced each to nine months in prison and a ban on Telegram, WhatsApp, Instagram and Discord for three years and nine months; the sentence is firm.","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the judiciary's official communication of the sentence; the press reports relay the same communication."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"decidieron obtener imágenes de los perfiles de Instagram” de tres jóvenes que habían sido compañeras de colegio y cuyas publicaciones en la red social estaban configuradas como abiertas y accesibles al público en general","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"manipular dichas imágenes con una aplicación de IA de Telegram “para obtener imágenes que simulaban, con gran realismo, los cuerpos íntegramente desnudos de las tres jóvenes”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"fueron compartidos entre sí por los tres acusados y el menor de edad a través de la creación de un grupo específico de WhatsApp y de otro de Discord, realizando posteriormente una mayor difusión, más allá de los citados grupos y desconociéndose el alcance de las cadenas de reenvío","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Después usaron una app de IA de Telegram \"para obtener imágenes que simulaban, con gran realismo, los cuerpos íntegramente desnudos de las tres jóvenes\"","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The court found proven that the three men, in concert with a minor, obtained images from the open Instagram profiles of three young women who had been their schoolmates, manipulated them with an AI application on Telegram to simulate with great realism their fully naked bodies, and shared the files in a WhatsApp group and a Discord group, after which they spread further with unknown reach.","causal_attribution":"Facts the court declared proven in a conformity sentence, as quoted in the judiciary's official communication; the judgment text itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"enviara sobre las 00,30 horas del día 10 de septiembre de 2023 al perfil de una de las jóvenes afectadas las imágenes manipuladas de las tres mujeres desnudas","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Una persona no identificada reenvió después las imágenes desde un perfil de Instagram: fue a las 00:30 horas del 10 de septiembre de 2023, al perfil de una de las afectadas","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"At about 00:30 on 10 September 2023 an unidentified person sent the manipulated nude images of the three women from an Instagram profile to the profile of one of the affected women.","causal_attribution":"Proven fact recorded in the sentence as quoted by the official communication and relayed by Moncloa.com."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"conceder a los tres encausados el beneficio de la suspensión del cumplimiento de la pena de prisión impuesta con la condición de que no cometan ningún delito en un plazo de dos años, la prohibición de acceder a las cuatro aplicaciones mencionadas durante el plazo de suspensión y la realización de un programa formativo en educación sexual","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"han procedido a ingresar en la cuenta de depósitos y consignaciones del órgano judicial la totalidad de las cantidades fijadas en concepto de responsabilidad civil, satisfaciendo de forma completa los importes reclamados en concepto de daño moral","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"El magistrado también aplica la atenuante analógica de confesión","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The prison terms were suspended for two years on condition of no new offence, the app ban and a sex-education programme, because the men have no criminal record, the term is under two years and they paid in full the civil liability fixed for moral damage; the court also applied the mitigating factor of confession.","causal_attribution":"Terms of the sentence as stated in the judiciary's official communication."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"ha dictado la primera sentencia condenatoria en Sevilla por el uso de una aplicación de inteligencia artificial (IA) para manipular imágenes de varias jóvenes y obtener, de este modo, imágenes que simulaban los cuerpos íntegramente desnudos de dichas mujeres","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"La sentencia, dictada el 1 de octubre y ya firme, es la primera de este tipo en la ciudad por manipulación de imágenes con IA","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"la primera condena en España por crear desnudos falsos con IA","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The judiciary's Andalusian communication office described the sentence as the first conviction in Sevilla for using an AI application to manipulate images of young women to simulate nudity; one outlet's headline extends this to Spain, which the official release does not say.","causal_attribution":"Characterisation by the court system's communication office; the 'first in Spain' headline is Moncloa.com's own and is not supported by the official release."}],"effects":[{"label":"AI-made nude images of three young women, built from their public Instagram photos, were shared in WhatsApp and Discord groups and sent to one of them","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Poder-Judicial/Tribunales-Superiores-de-Justicia/TSJ-Andalucia--Ceuta-y-Melilla/Noticias-Judiciales-TSJ-Andalucia--Ceuta-y-Melilla/Un-juez-dicta-la-primera-sentencia-condenatoria-en-Sevilla-por-el-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial-para-manipular-imagenes-de-varias-jovenes-y-simular-que-estaban-desnudas","kind":"official_statement","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Spanish body read and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09; no human translator or reviewer read the text. Official news release of the Poder Judicial (TSJ Andalucía communication office), dated Thursday 8 October 2026, summarising and quoting the sentence of 1 October 2026; HTTP 200, fetched directly.","independence_group":"tsja-communication-office-release-2026-10-08"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.publico.es/politica/tribunales/tres-condenados-desnudar-excompaneras-clase-ia-mandar-fotos-internet.amp.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Spanish body read and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09; no human translator or reviewer read the text. EFE agency report published by Público on 8 October 2026 (AMP page, HTTP 200), citing TSJA sources and a communication; relays the official release.","independence_group":"tsja-communication-office-release-2026-10-08"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.elperiodicodearagon.com/sucesos/2026/10/08/sentencia-pionera-sevilla-tres-hombres-135143127.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Spanish body read and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09; no human translator or reviewer read the text. El Periódico de Aragón report of 8 October 2026 (HTTP 200), crediting El Correo de Andalucía and the TSJA communication office; relays the official release.","independence_group":"tsja-communication-office-release-2026-10-08"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.moncloa.com/2026/10/08/sentencia-deepfake-sevilla-condena-ia-3444792/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"es","translation_note":"Spanish body read and translated by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-09; no human translator or reviewer read the text. Moncloa.com report of 8 October 2026 (HTTP 200) citing the resolution published by the CGPJ; its headline calls the sentence the first in Spain while its body says the first in the city, and only the latter matches the official release.","independence_group":"tsja-communication-office-release-2026-10-08"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["Where the images were made and shared and where the three women live; the sources name only the sentencing court, so the event and affected-person countries are left unknown.","When the images were created and how widely they spread; the court recorded that the reach of the forwarding chains is unknown, and the 10 September 2023 message to one woman is the only dated distribution.","The AI application used (only described as an AI application on Telegram), the ages of the three women at the time, and how the women experienced the images beyond the moral damages the court fixed.","The amounts of civil liability paid and what happened to the minor who took part; the official communication states neither.","Whether this is the first such conviction in Spain: the official release says first in Sevilla, and the judgment itself was not inspected."],"geography":{"basis":"The sentencing court is the Tribunal de Instancia de Sevilla, Spain (official communication, all press reports). No source says where the images were made or shared or where the three women live, so the event and affected-person countries are left unknown rather than inferred from the court's seat.","court_countries":["ES"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case on the judiciary's official communication of a firm criminal sentence: a Sevilla court found proven that three men manipulated public Instagram photographs of three former schoolmates with an AI application on Telegram into realistic nude images, shared them in WhatsApp and Discord groups, and that the images were sent to one of the women on 10 September 2023; each man was sentenced to nine months (suspended) and banned from four apps. The convicted men, the minor and the three women are unnamed in every source and in this record. The judgment text was not inspected and the event location is left unknown.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The judiciary's Andalusian communication office, publishing the sentence of 1 October 2026, states that the court found proven that the three men manipulated the women's Instagram photographs with an AI application on Telegram to obtain images that simulated, with great realism, their fully naked bodies, and that these files were shared in WhatsApp and Discord groups and sent to one of the women. The AI-generated nude images are the harm itself: they depict the three women (depicted_or_impersonated), their distribution is the conduct the court punished, and the court fixed moral damages for it. The application is not named, the judgment text was not inspected, and the account rests on the official communication and press reports relaying it.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Sevilla court: three men convicted of making AI nude images of three former schoolmates from Instagram photos and sharing them; nine months, firm 1 Oct 2026","summary":"A judge of the criminal section of the Tribunal de Instancia de Sevilla convicted three men on 1 October 2026, by a conformity agreement, of three offences against moral integrity with the gender aggravating factor. The court found proven that the three, acting with a minor, took photographs from the open Instagram profiles of three young women who had been their schoolmates, manipulated them with an AI application on Telegram to simulate, with great realism, the women's fully naked bodies, and shared the files in a WhatsApp group and a Discord group, after which they spread further; an unidentified person sent the manipulated images of all three to one of the women's Instagram profiles at about 00:30 on 10 September 2023. Each man received nine months in prison, suspended for two years on condition of no new offence, a ban on Telegram, WhatsApp, Instagram and Discord for three years and nine months and a sex-education programme; they paid the moral damages fixed by the court in full. The judiciary's Andalusian communication office published the sentence on 8 October 2026 and described it as the first conviction in Sevilla for this use of AI. The account rests on that official communication and on press reports relaying it; the judgment itself was not inspected.","incidentDate":"2023-09-10","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-10-08","aiSystem":"AI application on Telegram, not named, used according to the court's proven facts to manipulate Instagram photographs of three young women so that the images simulated their fully naked bodies","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court found proven that realistic AI-made nude images of three young women, built from their public Instagram photographs, were shared in WhatsApp and Discord groups, spread further with unknown reach, and sent to one of the women's own Instagram profile on 10 September 2023; the court fixed moral damages, which the convicted men paid in full, and convicted them of offences against the women's moral integrity.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":3,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Three depicted women: the official communication speaks of three young women who had been schoolmates of the accused and of three offences against moral integrity, one per woman. The men used the tool against others, so participant_users_affected_min is 0. Recipients of the images are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"ES","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Poder-Judicial/Tribunales-Superiores-de-Justicia/TSJ-Andalucia--Ceuta-y-Melilla/Noticias-Judiciales-TSJ-Andalucia--Ceuta-y-Melilla/Un-juez-dicta-la-primera-sentencia-condenatoria-en-Sevilla-por-el-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial-para-manipular-imagenes-de-varias-jovenes-y-simular-que-estaban-desnudas","primarySourceLabel":"Poder Judicial (TSJ Andalucía), 8 Oct 2026: first conviction in Sevilla for using AI to manipulate images of young women to simulate nudity","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:29:00.303654+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-09T03:29:00.303654+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["deepfake","non_consensual_intimate_imagery","telegram","instagram","discord","criminal_conviction","spain","court_ruling"]},{"id":"2025-uk-upper-tribunal-asylum-appeal-chatgpt-grounds-fake-cases-invented-quotes-sra-self-report","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"the grounds of appeal were completely infected by the use of AI. In addition to the citation of fake cases, and paragraphs from cases which are not contained in those judgments, the Grounds of Appeal also quote paragraphs from the decision of the First-tier Tribunal which do not appear in that decision.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was pure invention, which was not to be found anywhere in Judge Balroop’s decision, yet criticism of it formed the basis for one aspect of ground (3) in the grounds of appeal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"In this case, Mr Badar identified at least 18 separate errors in the grounds of appeal and withdrew three of the four grounds.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The appellant's then solicitors drafted grounds of appeal that her counsel accepted were completely infected by the use of AI, citing fake cases and paragraphs not contained in the cited judgments and quoting passages from the First-tier Tribunal decision that do not appear in it; the tribunal found one purported quotation to be pure invention.","causal_attribution":"Established by the tribunal's own findings and its record of counsel's concession in the published decision. The Gazette repeats the decision and adds no independent origin."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Both were produced by a junior member of staff, namely a paralegal, using ChatGPT, which itself raises significant concerns about client confidentiality and legal privilege.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This occurred because Sarker Solicitors did not check the accuracy of the grounds of appeal, did not consider the grant of permission and did not check the accuracy of the skeleton argument.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"They accepted that AI was used to generate the grounds of appeal filed in the FtT and the skeleton argument filed in the UT.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The grounds of appeal and skeleton argument were drafted by an unnamed paralegal working for east London firm Sarker Solicitors.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The tribunal found that both the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument were produced by a junior member of staff, a paralegal, using ChatGPT, and that the firm did not check their accuracy; the solicitors had accepted that AI was used to generate both documents.","causal_attribution":"The product identification and the failure to check are the tribunal's findings in the decision, recorded with the solicitors' acceptance that AI generated the documents. The Gazette's statement that the drafter was an unnamed paralegal relays the decision (same independence group)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"A hearing was listed before Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Hobbs on 17 September 2025 to consider whether Judge Balroop had erred in law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Judge Hobbs adjourned the hearing, with directions which included the following:","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We note that issues (2) to (4), which occupied a great deal of time at the hearing before us, only arose because of Sarker Solicitors’ inappropriate use of AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant withdrew the original grounds (1), (2) and (4).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant’s application for permission to amend ground (3) is granted.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We accept Mr Terrell’s submission that it is not in the interests of justice in this case that the appellant be permitted to advance entirely new grounds, or to replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, well beyond the original time limit for seeking permission to appeal.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"We therefore refuse the application for permission to amend in respect of the new grounds (4) and (5).","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant’s application for permission to amend grounds (4) and (5) is refused. For completeness, grounds (4) and (5) have been considered in the alternative and disclose no error of law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"However, ground (3) discloses no error of law.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The appellant’s appeal therefore fails.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The judge declined to set aside permission to appeal but dismissed the appeal in any case. The Home Office was invited to file and serve any wasted costs application on Sarker Solicitors within 28 days.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The error-of-law hearing listed for 17 September 2025 was adjourned, and three of the five issues at the final hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of the solicitors' use of AI. The appellant withdrew three of her four original grounds. The tribunal allowed an amended version of her surviving ground (3) but found that it disclosed no error of law. It refused permission to add new grounds (4) and (5), holding that it was not in the interests of justice to let her advance entirely new grounds, or replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, well beyond the original time limit, and in the alternative found those grounds without merit. Her appeal failed.","causal_attribution":"Procedural history and disposition are directly established by the decision. The decision attributes the adjournment and the wasted hearing time to the solicitors' misuse of AI. It gives the misrepresentation-riddled original grounds and the late application as its reasons for refusing the new grounds (para 65), and it also found those grounds without merit in the alternative (para 74). It states separately that the surviving ground failed on its merits, so the dismissal itself is not attributed to the AI output."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and so we will say nothing about the professional conduct issues involved.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"The respondent shall file and serve on Sarker Solicitors any wasted costs application, or confirmation that costs are not being pursued, within 28 days of this decision being sent to the parties.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Two individuals involved in filing court documents using ChatGPT which were riddled with mistakes and invented quotes have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and directs the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm within 28 days; no costs decision has been taken.","causal_attribution":"The self-reports and the costs directions are stated in the decision itself. The Gazette repeats them from the decision (same independence group), so the claim is documented, not corroborated. Whether the two individuals are the paralegal and the supervising solicitor is not stated."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"It would be misleading to describe them as having been caused by AI, rather than by the solicitors’ misuse of AI.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"This was one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI, rather than a mere mis-citation of particular cases.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The tribunal said it would be misleading to describe the irregularities as caused by AI rather than by the solicitors' misuse of AI. It recorded the Home Office's submission that this was one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI.","causal_attribution":"The tribunal's own qualification, preserved as contrary evidence on causation: the decision places responsibility with the solicitors. The Home Office's characterisations (at best negligent, at worst reckless, and one of the more extreme examples of the misuse of AI) are relayed in the decision as its submissions (para 43)."}],"effects":[{"label":"Appellant's protection appeal pursued on AI-generated grounds containing fake cases and invented quotations; hearing adjourned and three of four grounds withdrawn","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"},{"label":"Two individuals self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; wasted costs application against the firm invited","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2025-002601","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ut-decision-ui-2025-002601"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/duo-self-report-to-sra-over-grounds-of-appeal-infected-with-ai/5128148.article","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"","independence_group":"ut-decision-ui-2025-002601"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The date on which the paralegal generated the grounds of appeal is not stated; it falls between the First-tier decision of 23 April 2025 and the hearing listed for 17 September 2025.","Whether the two individuals who self-reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority are the paralegal and the supervising solicitor is not stated, and the outcome of any SRA consideration is unknown.","Whether the Home Office pursued wasted costs, and any amount, was not decided in the published decision.","What prompts were given to ChatGPT, and whether client material was entered into it, is not described; the tribunal only notes that the use raises confidentiality and privilege concerns.","Whether the appellant's appeal would have succeeded on properly drafted grounds cannot be known. The tribunal found that her surviving, amended ground disclosed no error of law, and that the two new grounds it refused to admit disclosed none either when considered in the alternative."],"geography":{"basis":"The decision is an Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision heard at Field House, London, in an appeal against a UK Home Office refusal; the solicitors are described by the Gazette as an east London firm. The appellant is a Namibian national whose appeal concerns her removal from the UK, so her country is recorded as GB on the basis of the proceedings in which she was harmed, and Namibia is not recorded because no harm occurred there.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"The published Upper Tribunal decision (tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk, UI-2025-002601) and the Law Society Gazette report of 8 October 2026 were read in full on 2026-10-09, and the decision was re-read on 2026-10-11 for this correction. The decision records what ChatGPT generated (fake cases, misattributed paragraphs, invented quotations from the First-tier judge) and ties that output to the adjourned hearing, the wasted hearing time, the withdrawn grounds, the refusal of permission to add new grounds, the regulator self-reports and the costs directions. The appellant is anonymised by tribunal order and is described only by nationality and appeal type; the firm is named because the operative costs directions are addressed to it; the paralegal is unnamed. The tribunal's statement that the solicitors' misuse, not AI, caused the irregularities is preserved.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-11"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Upper Tribunal's published decision finds that the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument filed on the appellant's behalf were produced by a paralegal using ChatGPT, and describes what that output contained: citations of fake cases, paragraphs not found in the cited judgments, and purported quotations from the First-tier judge's decision that the tribunal calls pure invention. The decision connects that output to the harm: the September 2025 hearing was adjourned after the Home Office queried the citation errors, three of the five issues at the final hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of the solicitors' use of AI, the appellant withdrew three of four grounds, and the tribunal invited a wasted costs application and noted two self-reports to the regulator. The FtT judge granted permission on those grounds while noting the misquotations, and the Upper Tribunal's decisions not to set aside permission and to refuse the new grounds were taken in the express context of the misrepresentations (paras 46-47, 65 and 74). The tribunal itself states that the irregularities were caused by the solicitors' misuse of AI rather than by AI, and the decision records the solicitors' own acceptance that AI was used. The firm's acceptance and the tribunal's findings come from one record, so the status is supported rather than corroborated by an independent source.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["acted_on_behalf","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"UK Upper Tribunal: solicitors' ChatGPT-drafted grounds in an asylum appeal cited fake cases and invented quotes; two individuals self-report to the SRA","summary":"A published Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision issued on 21 September 2026 records that the grounds of appeal and skeleton argument in a Namibian national's protection appeal were produced by a paralegal at her then solicitors using ChatGPT. The tribunal recorded her counsel's acceptance that the grounds cited fake cases, quoted passages absent from those judgments and attributed to the First-tier judge sentences he never wrote, and itself called one purported quotation pure invention. The September 2025 error-of-law hearing was adjourned, and the appellant later withdrew three of her four original grounds. The tribunal allowed an amended version of her one surviving ground but found that it disclosed no error of law. It refused her permission to add two new grounds, holding that she should not be allowed to advance entirely new grounds, or replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, so long after the time limit, and in the alternative found those grounds without merit. It directed the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; the Law Society Gazette reported the decision on 8 October 2026.","incidentDate":"2025-09-17","incidentEndDate":"2026-09-21","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-10-06","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, used by a paralegal to generate grounds of appeal and a skeleton argument (as found in the Upper Tribunal decision)","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","aiCompany":"OpenAI","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The tribunal records that the appellant's error-of-law hearing in September 2025 was adjourned, that three of the five issues at the eventual hearing, which occupied a great deal of its time, arose only because of her solicitors' inappropriate use of AI, that she withdrew three of her four original grounds, that it refused her permission to add two new grounds, holding that she should not be allowed to advance entirely new grounds, or replace grounds riddled with misrepresentations, long after the time limit, and that her appeal fails. It found her one surviving, amended ground disclosed no error of law and, in the alternative, that the two refused grounds disclosed none either. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and directs the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm; no costs decision has been taken.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"documented_minimum","affectedCountEvidence":"One person counted: the appellant, whose appeal proceeded on AI-generated grounds she did not draft (the decision describes her as the appellant throughout). The paralegal who used ChatGPT and the supervising solicitor face professional consequences of their own conduct (self-report to the SRA, possible wasted costs) and are not counted as harmed persons; the two self-reporting individuals are not named as the paralegal and the solicitor in the decision.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"chatbot","primarySourceUrl":"https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2025-002601","primarySourceLabel":"Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), UI-2025-002601, decision issued 21 September 2026, published 6 October 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-09T03:28:56.311373+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T07:43:28.275795+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":[]},{"id":"2026-rennes-administrative-court-fines-claimant-ai-written-tax-appeal","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Par une ordonnance n°2508168 rendue le 19 août 2026, le tribunal administratif de Rennes a infligé une amende pour recours abusif de 500 euros à une personne dont le recours avait manifestement été écrit à l’aide d’un outil d’intelligence artificielle.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'le vice-président du tribunal administratif de Rennes, Thurian Jouno, prend l'exemple d'une femme qui avait réclamé l'annulation d'un rattrapage fiscal, manifestement avec l'aide de l'IA. Elle a été condamnée à une amende de 500 €.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'Le 19 août 2026, le tribunal administratif de Rennes a condamné une requérante à une amende de 500 euros pour recours abusif.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'Le tribunal administratif de Rennes a tranché le 19 août 2025 : 500 euros d’amende pour recours abusif.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"By order n°2508168 of 19 August 2026, the tribunal administratif de Rennes fined a claimant 500 euros for an abusive application (recours abusif) under article R.741-12 of the code de justice administrative.","causal_attribution":"Gossement Avocats quotes the order; the court’s vice-president described the fine on France Inter (ICI). Le Tribunal du Net (relaying Capital) dates the order 19 August 2025, contradicting its own opening sentence and the other sources; 2026 is used here."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'avait déposé un recours devant le tribunal administratif de Rennes pour contester une décision de l’administration fiscale (rappel de TVA)'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'les moyens de la requête, laquelle a, au demeurant, été manifestement écrite à l’aide d’un outil d’intelligence artificielle, ne sont pas assortis des précisions les plus élémentaires, permettant au juge d’en apprécier la portée et le bien-fondé.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Elle demandait l’annulation d’un rattrapage fiscal dans une requête qui comportait des erreurs importantes et était, selon le juge, manifestement assistée par un outil d’intelligence artificielle.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The order states that the application, contesting a VAT reassessment by the tax administration, had manifestly been written with an artificial intelligence tool and that its grounds lacked the most elementary details needed for the judge to assess them; this was one of the grounds for rejecting it.","causal_attribution":"The court’s own finding, as quoted by Gossement Avocats. The court inferred AI drafting from the text; no source says which tool was used or quotes the claimant."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'il n’est pas établi que la requête ait été précédée d’une réclamation adressée aux services fiscaux. Elle est donc manifestement irrecevable'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Eu égard à ce qui a été dit aux points 2 et 3 ci-dessus, la présente requête, qui fait d’ailleurs suite à une requête ayant, en substance, le même objet, rejetée par ordonnance du 3 octobre 2025, présente un caractère abusif.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'le tribunal administratif de Rennes n’a pas infligé cette amende pour recours abusif à l’auteure de la requête au seul motif qu’il a été rédigé avec l’aide de l’IA.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Ce n’est donc pas l’usage de l’IA en lui-même qui a été puni, mais l’insistance sur un dossier déjà tranché.'","relation":"context","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The court also found the application manifestly inadmissible because it was not shown to have been preceded by a complaint to the tax service, and held it abusive in view of that finding, the imprecision finding and the fact that it followed a request with substantially the same object rejected by order of 3 October 2025.","causal_attribution":"The order’s reasoning as quoted by Gossement Avocats: the AI-drafted imprecision is one stated ground among several; Gossement and Le Tribunal du Net both stress that AI use alone was not the basis of the fine."}],"effects":[{"label":"a claimant was fined 500 euros for an abusive application that the court found manifestly written with an AI tool and lacking elementary detail","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"the AI-drafted application was rejected, the court stating that its grounds could not be assessed","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.gossement-avocats.com/blog/ia-lusage-abusif-de-lintelligence-artificielle-peut-mener-a-une-amende-pour-recours-abusif-tribunal-administratif-de-rennes-19-aout-2026-n2508168/","kind":"legal_commentary","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Full post read by curl on 2026-09-29 (Arnaud Gossement, note updated 16 September 2026); it quotes the order at length. English renderings in the record are the reviewer’s translations. The order itself was not read.","independence_group":"rennes-order-2508168"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.ici.fr/bretagne/ille-et-vilaine-35/rennes/c-est-assez-angoissant-au-tribunal-de-rennes-l-inquietude-face-a-l-augmentation-des-requetes-creees-par-ia-4372820","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"ICI / France Inter, 2 September 2026, reporting the court vice-president’s radio interview; read in full by curl. Reviewer’s translations.","independence_group":"rennes-ta-vice-president"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.letribunaldunet.fr/hightech/recours-ia-amende-10000-euros-risque.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Le Tribunal du Net, 7 September 2026, relaying Capital.fr’s interview with lawyer Alexandre Lazarègue; read in full. It dates the order to 19 August 2025, an error against its own opening and the other sources. Capital.fr’s original was not read.","independence_group":"capital-lazaregue"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.epochtimes.fr/recours-administratifs-et-ia-la-justice-face-a-lafflux-de-requetes-redigees-avec-chatgpt-3354369.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"fr","translation_note":"Epoch Times France, 24 September 2026, summarising franceinfo’s report of the decision; read in full. franceinfo’s original was not read.","independence_group":"franceinfo-relay"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","finance","public_services"],"unknowns":["Which AI tool was used and how the claimant used it.","The amount of the VAT reassessment at issue and whether the claimant pursued any further remedy.","Whether the earlier request rejected on 3 October 2025 was also AI-drafted."],"geography":{"basis":"The order was made by the tribunal administratif de Rennes (France) on a French tax (VAT) dispute. Where the claimant lives or where the application was drafted is not stated.","court_countries":["FR"],"event_countries":["FR"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete court sanction on a private person whose application the court found manifestly AI-written and too imprecise to assess. The record rests on a law firm’s verbatim quotation of the order and the court vice-president’s radio account; the order itself was not read. The court fined for several reasons, and the record states them. The claimant is not identified.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-29"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The order, as quoted by Gossement Avocats, states that the application was manifestly written with an artificial intelligence tool; the court’s vice-president repeated this on France Inter. This is the court’s inference from the text. The tool is not named and no source reproduces the claimant’s exchange with it.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Rennes administrative court fines a claimant 500 euros for an abusive tax appeal it found manifestly written with an AI tool and too imprecise to assess","summary":"According to Gossement Avocats, which quotes the order, and the court's vice-president on France Inter, an order of 19 August 2026 (n°2508168) of the tribunal administratif de Rennes rejected a claimant’s application contesting a VAT reassessment and fined the claimant 500 euros for an abusive application. As quoted by Gossement Avocats, the order says the application had manifestly been written with an artificial intelligence tool and that its grounds lacked the most elementary details needed to assess them. The court also found it inadmissible because no prior complaint to the tax service was shown, and noted that it repeated a request with substantially the same object rejected in October 2025. The court’s vice-president cited the case on France Inter; commentators stress that AI use alone was not the basis for the fine.","incidentDate":"2026-08-19","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"unknown","reportedDate":"2026-09-02","aiSystem":"Generative AI tool (not named in inspected sources)","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A claimant was fined 500 euros for an abusive application and had it rejected; the order states the application was manifestly written with an AI tool and too imprecise to assess, alongside inadmissibility and repetition grounds (order quoted by Gossement Avocats; court vice-president on France Inter).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One harmed person: the claimant who filed the application the court found AI-written and who was fined 500 euros (order as quoted by Gossement Avocats; court vice-president on France Inter). No other harmed person is reported.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"FR","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.gossement-avocats.com/blog/ia-lusage-abusif-de-lintelligence-artificielle-peut-mener-a-une-amende-pour-recours-abusif-tribunal-administratif-de-rennes-19-aout-2026-n2508168/","primarySourceLabel":"Gossement Avocats: IA : l’usage abusif de l’intelligence artificielle peut mener à une amende pour recours abusif (TA Rennes, ord., 19 août 2026, n°2508168)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-29T09:10:28.483038+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:50.764055+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["justice","administrative-court","fine","recours-abusif","ai-drafted-filing","tax","own-use","france","rennes"]},{"id":"2026-kumar-sdt-strike-off-ai-citations","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, Allegation 2.1 findings and the schedule of false/miscited authorities.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"RollOnFriday's listing of the bogus citations.","relation":"context","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"Allegation 2.1 was found proved: Kumar's 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI, including the non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502', the miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' (in reality an IP case) and a misattributed Baxendale-Walker passage.","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment; trade press accounts are consistent."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, Allegation 2.2 findings and the 13 April acceptance.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Allegation 2.2 was found proved: his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted and contained further errors, which he accepted on 13 April 2026.","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, sanction and reasoning passages.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"Outer Temple's case note confirming the outcome and the 'first SDT case on a lawyer's use of AI' framing.","relation":"context","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"On 25 August 2026 the SDT struck Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers with culpability 'very high', stating it would have struck him off on either allegation alone; the tribunal invoked Ayinde v Haringey LBC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin).","causal_attribution":"Directly established by the tribunal's written judgment; the 'first AI case' framing comes from the SRA's counsel and is attributed."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"SDT judgment, conviction allegation and sentence passages.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"RollOnFriday's Isleworth Crown Court reference (recorded as a discrepancy; the judgment controls).","relation":"contradicts","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The parallel ground was his 29 January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 — recorded by the judgment as at the Central Criminal Court (RollOnFriday says Isleworth Crown Court, a discrepancy) — sentenced on 26 April 2024 to a 12-month community order with 150 hours' unpaid work.","causal_attribution":"The conviction ground is established by the judgment; the convicting-court discrepancy across outlets is preserved."}],"effects":[{"label":"lawyer struck off after AI-generated false citations in his disciplinary defence","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/12884-2026-Kumar-.pdf","kind":"tribunal_judgment","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Judgment PDF read on 2026-09-15 (25 Aug 2026): allegations, findings, sanction, panel, and the Ayinde v Haringey invocation.","independence_group":"sdt"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/lawyer-struck-off-for-using-fake-ai-generated-cases-before-sdt","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (4 Sep 2026).","independence_group":"legal-futures"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/foreign-lawyer-produced-ai-generated-false-citations-at-sdt/5127825.article","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (4 Sep 2026, Hyde).","independence_group":"law-gazette"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/first-lawyer-struck-ai-addiction","kind":"trade_press","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (11 Sep 2026). Colour and the specific bogus citations; its 'AI addiction' framing is editorial joking, not a finding.","independence_group":"rollonfriday"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.outertemple.com/joshua-hitchens-acts-for-the-sra-in-the-first-solicitors-disciplinary-tribunal-case-on-a-lawyers-use-of-ai/","kind":"counsel_case_note","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-09-15 (8 Sep 2026). SRA counsel's chambers' note: case number, dates, judgment link, and the 'first SDT case on a lawyer's use of AI' framing; participant-side account, recorded as such.","independence_group":"outer-temple"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["work","justice"],"unknowns":["The specific generative AI tool is not named in the inspected accounts.","The convicting court appears as the Central Criminal Court in the judgment and Isleworth Crown Court in RollOnFriday; the judgment controls but the discrepancy is unresolved in the inspected material.","Whether Kumar seeks to appeal the strike-off is not reported.","His employment status after the strike-off is not reported; the Law Gazette's employment background predates it."],"geography":{"basis":"Events: his practice and the SRA proceedings in England. Affected person: Kumar, on the Register of Foreign Lawyers in England and Wales. Court: the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal; the parallel conviction was at the Central Criminal Court (per the judgment; RollOnFriday's Isleworth Crown Court is a recorded discrepancy).","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as an own-use, work-context adverse consequence with tribunal-found AI misconduct and a dated, career-ending sanction. This applies the charter's individual-review rule to the AI-sanction class; a class-level ruling is not required. Kumar is named in a public tribunal judgment; the parallel conviction ground is recorded for completeness and is not used to inflate the AI link. RollOnFriday's 'AI addiction' framing is recorded as editorial joking.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Tribunal-found: the 12 March 2026 Answer's misleading quotations and citations were produced with generative AI, and the 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors (accepted 13 April). The specific tool is not named in the inspected accounts.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"SDT strikes solicitor Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after AI-generated false citations in his SRA defence","summary":"On 25 August 2026 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after finding proved that his 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI — including a non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502' and a miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' that is actually an intellectual-property case — and that his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors. The tribunal said it would have struck him off on that allegation alone; the parallel ground was his January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. This is the SDT's first case on a lawyer's use of AI, per the SRA's counsel.","incidentDate":"2026-03-12","incidentEndDate":"2026-08-25","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-09-04","aiSystem":"Generative AI (tool not named in inspected accounts)","aiProduct":"Unidentified AI tool","aiCompany":"Unknown","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["professional_harm","legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"Career-ending professional consequence for the lawyer who submitted AI-generated false citations in his own disciplinary defence: struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers on 25 August 2026, with culpability rated 'very high'.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One documented harmed person: Kumar himself, the AI user struck off (SDT judgment). No client or third-party harm is reported in the inspected sources and none is counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/12884-2026-Kumar-.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal judgment, SRA Ltd v Abhishek Kumar, Case No. 12884-2026 (25 Aug 2026)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-15T06:18:05.203137+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T01:17:43.433309+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["work","justice","legal-profession","strike-off","fabricated-citations","sdt","own-use","uk"]}]}